Nick wrote:
> BTW: apart from ligaturation and variant-loop <ch>'es,
> are there any other
> types of information that you think are missing from
> current transcriptions?
>
> I suppose my point is simply that, if you define your
> glyph alphabet in
> terms of ligatured EVA, ie
>
> K <--> (ckh)
>
> ...etc, then you shouldn't need to create a specific
> moving-target font, as
> you can remap into EVA dynamically (stripping out the
> ligatures as you go).
> Even if you were to edit your transcription using a
> glyph format, the most
> flexible storage representation format would always be
> a ligatured EVA
> representation, and the most universal display format
> would be EVA (but
> probably with ligature brackets removed).
>
> The key is, of course, making sure that the storage EVA
> is overcomplete
> relative to the display EVA, such that it can
> automatically (and
> deterministically) be converted to/from glyphs without problem.
This implies that each of us is required to make unilateral
determinations, which I've obviously been doing! Not everyone is
interested in the questions I'm asking, I grant, but one of the
advantages of group feedback is to have someone tell me when I'm
entering the Twilight Zone, or conversely, when I'm touching on
something they themselves have been pondering for some time.
Again, these questions are not necessary for everyone to have
answered, but for the few that do think along these lines, they
become very important questions.
The primary question I'm asking is "what consitutes a glyph?".
This is answered through discussion of construction, and hopefully
coming to some concensus on what variations are within the realm
of calligraphy and what variations are intentional. An obvious
glyph that needs this determination might be the <y> or {9} glyph,
which comes with a curved tail and a straight tail. I separate
the two by calling one {9} and the other {7}, but there is no
individual representation for {7} in the EVA set as I read it.
Someone might be able to come up with a set of EVA characters that
approximates the {7}, but this distinction has never been made in
EVA transcriptions. Is <ii> in the middle of a word the same
glyph as <in> at the end of a word, and a hundred more questions
that beg answers.
If I write:
<sshol.shecthy.qokaiin.chkedy.rchey.dair.chey.qokaiin>, the
approximations of the glyhs appear on the screen when the font is
applied. This can be capitalized for even closer approximation,
but there is no concrete glyph information encoded in this line.
If I write the same as:
{2Woe.WcI9.4oham.whc89.swc9.8aS.wc9.4oham}, I've encoded any and
all determinations I've made as to penstrokes, glyph construction
and individual identification. In effect I have encoded a larger
information set in a much smaller space, which in turn gives me
more room within the ansi character set to more accurately define
variants and wierdos without having to move to Unicode. This
method of transcription encodes all EVA stroke information into a
compressed format, one that also includes EVA capitalization rules
non-existent in current EVA transcriptions. While my example here
includes few special determinations, the logic and force of early
transcription design should not be underestimated.
Is the VMS written in glyphs, or merely a compilation of
penstrokes? I find the evidence overwhelming that the author
composed each 'word' and line by first constructing individual
glyphs, and that the strokes themselves fall more properly into
the realm of calligraphy than cryptography. This for me makes the
glyph the smallest unit to be defined, not the penstroke. And
since I believe that sets of strokes serve only to compose
individual glyphs, it makes little sense for me to machine encode
an {I} as <cph>, when {I} contains all the information I need to
know about this particular glyph. Someone can always translate my
{I} to <cph> if it suits their needs, since all relevant EVA
calligraphy information encoded in <cph> is also encoded in the
simple {I}. Ultimately this transcription has the ability to
encode a higher degree of calligraphic information than currently
exists in any transcription, EVA or otherwise.
Another consideration:
Writing {8am 4oHcc89} in ascii instead of {daiin qockheedy} has
an added advantage for newcomers and old-timers alike, in that it
provides a simplified set of mnemonics for glyph representation,
while incorporating a larger amount of observational data, and
presents these observations in a single-glyph alphabetic
respresentation far more familiar to amateur cryptographers than
the EVA calligraphic stroke representation. {8am 4oHcc89} does
not need to be pronounceable in order to communicate large amounts
of information in simple form. Anyone currently on this list
should only have to know what I mean by {H} in order to visualize
what I've written above, and once they learn that the uppercase
{H} (EVA <ckh>) is the combination form of the lowercase gallows
{h} (EVA <k>), the value of this transcription and its ability to
readily transmit simplified mnemonic information even in ascii
becomes evident. I'm trying to do more work in this area, but
this is not a trivial matter, since simplification (IMHO) reduces
intimidation factors and increases understanding, and increased
understanding leads to increased participation, which may in turn
ultimately open valuable avenues of thought not presently
entertained.
Hopefully none of this rubs anyone the wrong way, as it is not my
intention to create friction, rather to move the investigation
forward. I was under the understanding at the outset that EVA
capitalization rules and &codes would serve to answer my concerns
in this area, and provide future enthusiasts with a complete and
accurate means of digesting the VMS glyph information. My
experience has been that while the EVA design is impressive, the
resulting implementation has been remarkably disappointing. This
is no reflection on the authors of the EVA, as I truly admire
their dedication, and they had very little control over the finer
points of its implementation.
I start by posing the simplest of questions - In your opinion, is
the VMS written in glyphs composed of strokes, or does each stroke
communicate meaning? I should lose Jacque right about now, and a
couple who say "we just can't know", but the rest will probably
agree that <q>, <o>, <d>, <y>, <s>, <l>, <r>, <t>, <p>, <k>, <f>,
<a>, <e>, <n>, <ch>, <sh>, <cth>, <cph>, <ckh>, <cfh>, <in>,
<iin>, and <iiin> are individual and distinct glyphs, just to name
a few. If you view these forms as individual glyphs, you're
privately answering the questions I'm asking publicly, and relying
on your own observations in absence of group consciousness to
formulate your theories. So let's talk about this. Let's look at
what most of us are seeing, and try to gain some valuable feedback
in the process.
GC